On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:36:16AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > I don't understand all the consequences of this patch yet, but this makes reading > out the flash chip connected to an i210 work for me. > --- > drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c > index 739bc17a519e..482a969f8d56 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c > +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c > @@ -709,8 +709,8 @@ static int e1000_flash_mode_wait_for_idle(struct e1000_hw *hw) > * execution by polling only FLSWCTL.DONE */ > > const int ret = e1000_poll_reg(hw, E1000_FLSWCTL, > - E1000_FLSWCTL_DONE | E1000_FLSWCTL_GLDONE, > - E1000_FLSWCTL_DONE | E1000_FLSWCTL_GLDONE, > + E1000_FLSWCTL_DONE, > + E1000_FLSWCTL_DONE, I tested a bit with and without this change at it seems as long as nothing "strange" happens, testing for both FLSWCTL.DONE and FLSWCTL.GLDONE (i.e. not applying my HACK patch) works fine. Still I think only testing for FLSWCTL.DONE is better because it works well even if the state machine is in the middle of a read request and then changing the command (which is always done after e1000_flash_mode_wait_for_idle()) should work well. I'll resend with a better commit log once I tested this. Alexey: I didn't understand the comment above the patched line, maybe I'm missing something? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
